Take the Impossible “Literacy” Test Louisiana Gave Black Voters in the 1960s | Hacker News Reader

Take the Impossible “Literacy” Test Louisiana Gave Black Voters in the 1960s

slate.com

13 pointsbcn10 comments

In high school we took an example of a literacy test that was completely different. It asked questions about the contents of the constitution. For example, one question was the exact date that the new Congress starts. No one, even in AP US History, would have been able to vote.

Of course, the real problem with the tests were the grandfather clauses ("If your grandfather voted, you automatically qualify"), white people administering the tests, and pure intimidation if you tried to vote.

"In the space below draw three circles, one inside (engulfed by) the other."

Hm... how?

Exactly. Ambiguity is a feature.

This is similar to the questions posed to jewish university applicants in the soviet union. The questions were very ambiguous and very hard, but the best part is that they had very simple solutions so if questioned, the administrator can answer it. The point was that nobody who legitimately took the test could answer it. And of course, a single mistake means failure.

Most of these seem perfectly fine as excessively pedantic reading tests to me. Remove 29, give a longer time limit, and this makes a perfectly good test to use in a school scenario (where getting 100% or not doesn't make a difference to your civil liberties).

From the description I was expecting awful impossible questions, not silly puzzles and a single question that looks to have been transcribed incorrectly.

If you can't see the ambiguity in a lot of these questions, I think you failed ;)

For example, see questions 5 and 6.

5. circle the first a in the line 6. I suppose this has multiple interpretations but I see no way for circle in circle in circle to be wrong.

How am I misreading this, assuming a schoolteacher grading this and not a lying racist. How many of these questions have multiple legitimate interpretations, not counting very slightly poor wording?

5 is grammatically incorrect and thus difficult to parse.

6 is ambiguous because of the statement '"the" circle'. This may mean one circle must be inside one other circle, but not inside the other, or that 3 nested circles are legal.

It does make you wonder why the state didn't have prospective voters prove that they could pat their heads while rubbing their abdomens. It does remind me of a test I had in 6th Grade, the first instruction of which was "1. Read all instructions before proceeding with the test.", and the last "n. Put down your pencil, fold your hands, and wait for the test to be collected.

Even I'm not confident in the correct interpretation of that. In context, it seems like a test in following directions, where the correct answer is to ignore instructions 2..n-1. However, the last instruction does not say to ignore the previous one, so it seems like the correct answer is to treat the instructions as a series of sequential commands, where you put down your pencil when you are finished..

No doubt I have the wording slightly wrong: I took that in September or October of 1966. But whatever the exact wording, those who sat quietly with a sheet empty but for the name got 100% and the rest of us got 0%.

[edit: why be coy about the date?]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com